I believe that Singapore keeps a good portion of it’s airforce in bases in the US due to lack of space at home for training.

So I guess that makes even for the “small nation” argument. In fact, never mind the Eagles, they had the money and they wanted the best. So be it. But what about tankers? What use could such a small country have for tankers? They have some good reasons, yes, but again, it makes even for the “size” argument. Venezuela and Vietnam are both relatively very small countries, yet both operate Su-30s. The real problem for Serbia is it being landlocked, and as such, the huge range of the flanker would be of no use, except for overkill (here it applies perfectly I guess) loiter time.

By the way, I know they have access to the seas through the Danube river (and then through the Bosporus), but obviously the same does not apply for the air space right above the river, right?

Yes and the USN is convinced about that. The SH is a design from the 90s with state of the art avionics. The Russians went a similar way to transform a 70s design into the Su-35BM, which still has to enter service. 😉

The SH is a seventies design, no matter how much you whine. There is nothing in common inside, yes, and that’s what makes all the difference.

As for the Su-35BM, sorry but either you are blind, or you don’t read the post to which you reply. I already pointed out that it’s the same with that. I haven’t hear anybody (and I mean ANYBODY), claiming that the Su-35BM is a new design.

By your way of thinking all future customers have be warned to spent their money for such “outdated fighters”. :diablo:

Well, they really don’t have to be warned, I mean what I have said is not exactly a secret. Just take a look at the SH’s export book: Just 24 for Australia. But Australia now? Come on, they would buy whatever uncle Sam would sell them. And US Navy? They did not exactly have a too huge list of alternatives, did they? Everywhere else SH has failed. Now, it might be a coincidence, or it might not.

I don’t understand what grounds the Pentagon has to “to reassure stakeholders”. What “required steps” can the Pentagon take “to deal with the problems”? The Pentagon did not design the F-35. It is not testing the F-35. It does not manufacture the F-35. It can do nothing to fix design, test and manufacturing problems. All it can do is ask LM to do that. It has doubtless already been asking LM to do that for a very long time.

Publicity stuff. They have to show that they care and they work towards the right direction.

In view of this comment, I think the program is ceasing to make sense. I think it should be put on tickover (except for testing) until it is brought under control. I think that would be better than blundering on resulting in the politicians imposing savage cuts in the number of frames to be purchased by the US forces.

Perhaps, but in this case the consequences would be unpredictable as well as unprecedented.

I think it was a stupid idea to take the big risk of embarking on manufacturing an untested product.

You can call it risky, you can call it very risky, but not stupid. Not yet.

overall, it’s a 70’s design that was beefed up… now, there’s probably not one single part in common, yet, aerodynamically and from the “stealthy” POV, it’s quite a similar aircraft…

I know… The funny thing is Boeing itself has made this point to argue that it’s a different better fighter (which it is, by all means), but at the same time they contradict themselves by advertising “commonality” to existing Hornet users… :rolleyes:

Cold logic is not your strong point. The Danish AF will field no more than two squadrons of ~50 fighters in total.

The main task of that will be the national air-policing or a few related missions within the NATO.

Some years ago the F-35 was seen not much more expensive than the last Blocks of F-16s, it seemed to be a smart solution to replace the F-16s after 30 years of service by that.

But I don’t know these info are relevant.

The semi-stealth SH offers enough volume for later avionic upgrades, even when the present avionics are the next best available to the F-35 already. All that with a proven fighter design and well known operating cost.

Yes, I’am sure for playing policemen Super Hornets are just fine. As for proven, do you mean that… it flies? Yes it does, so? I was questioning its effectiveness in say 20 years from now, against threats of that time, not threats of the seventies… RDAF will be bound with any option for the next 4 decades. Do they really want to stick with a seventies’ design with no industrial or upgrade prospectives that could even approach those of F-35? I doubt it, and except from smalltalk, you haven’t presented any argument…

Also, “semi stealth”?! Do you actually bother to think a little before you post?

No. The next PAK-FA is years away.

So is the next danish procurement, which would introduce fighters that would remain in service for the next 30 years, AT LEAST. What will Denmark have in 2030 for its air defence? Will SH be enough THEN? I doubt it, even with upgrades.

NATO Danmark does not ecen share a border with a future PAK-FA customer. There is no way to engage Danmark and by that the whole NATO. Even Russia can not touch Danmark.

I really think you should do a little research, to stay polite. For both parts of this quote, but especially the second one, so as to avoid embarassment.

For the national tasks the F-18s are still more than enough. 😉

For the “national tasks”, air policing that is, and perhaps a few friendly visits to international excercises, or in the worst case scenario, a few bomb drops in some Asian desert, even current F-16s are more than enough.

But that’s not a way to plan for your future, even if you are Denmark.

I think it has little to do with what is preferred. The air force might prefer F-22’s but if the price were too high, the government would refuse to fund their acquisition. There is also the question of when the F-35 will be available. One thing you can say about the F-35 is that it would be very risky to depend on it being available when LM predicts it will be.

You are right, preference is irrelevant, politics makes the whole difference, but in this case, the article talks about the military’s preference, so that’s what I commented upon.

For the second part I must agree too. Things with the F-35 are pretty fluid these days. FWIW though, here in Greece we pray that everything goes well, so that Turkey is not forced to seriously consider other options such as the Typhoon.

Go LM go! F-35 FTW!!! 😀

and yes two eingined AC is allways bit more dearer to run, but it is not a staggering difference…

So many countries have been using twin engined airplanes for decades and still do (F-4Es, Jaguars, Alpha Jets and especially F-5A-Fs), noone ever complained. It doesn’t make any difference really, if a country decides that it needs a specific fighter, it won’t reject it because it has two engines. Other factors matter much more.

This means war, I guess.

BAE loses to US in £1bn army ‘Scout’ race

By Alex Barker and Sylvia Pfeifer

Published: March 12 2010 23:01 | Last updated: March 12 2010 23:01

BAE Systems has lost the race to build the British army’s next generation of “Scout” armoured vehicles, beaten by General Dynamics of the US in the competition for a contract worth more than £1bn.

The US company’s victory is a heavy blow for BAE and will put at risk jobs at the UK company’s armaments division.

Quentin Davies, defence minister, is shortly expected to name General Dynamics as the preferred bidder in the deal to build an initial 750 vehicles.
However, there will be a delay of at least a year for a planned upgrade of the Warrior armoured vehicle.

The delay to the Warrior upgrade is the result of a “funding gap” that has emerged because of the Scout procurement and some doubts over the maturity of the technology. But defence officials insist the programme will still go ahead and that the “slippage” will only be short term.

The contest to supply the armoured reconnaissance vehicles is central to the future of Britain’s armoured vehicle industry and BAE’s business.
BAE, which has already announced the closure of three land-vehicle manufacturing plants and several hundred job losses over the past year, needed to win the two contests. It might have to cut more jobs.

The company had pledged to create jobs if it won the contest by opening a site near Donnington. GD has said winning the competition would create and sustain 10,500 UK jobs. But BAE has also said it would have to take another “look at restructuring in the UK” if it failed to win the Scout contract and Warrior upgrade.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4a45fe4e-2e19-11df-b85c-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

No? :p